Forum Topic

Matt, I think Sue is bonkers if she’s in favour of this deal.  I as someone who voted to leave am utterly repulsed by the way the remain establishment in this country has taken over and subverted the vote to leave.  Absolutely agree this is worse than remaining (Iwas slightly pro leave at the vote but as others my opinion has hardened).  Out of maybot’s choices of no deal, no Brexit or this deal I find it easy to order my choices to leave on basic terms and start afresh followed by remain with this pile of horse manure down the bottom.  I would quite happily support a 2nd refendum with those three choices, and like those who would far prefer to stay I too find Theresa’s approach deeply disMAYing.  What I would say it that after this there is no way back for the tories I think, so if we get this we get humiliating vassalage and the communist party (labour division) .Not sure it could get much worse.  If I had a Tory membership card I would rip it up, as it is I have already written to our local mp to say if they vote this through I will never vote for them again (well at least the next few elections) and pointed out they will likely lose millions of votes, I’m not sure whether they realise the sense of betrayal people will feel and that does not fade.  I’m appalled at the deceitful ness of the woman preparing this behind the backs of her cabinet and can only hope they find the balls to kick her out, although not looking currently likely, they should have after she launched her chequers ambush and I’m ashamed for them that they did not then and still have not.

Mike Warman ● 2908d

At the moment, as members of the EU, we have the freedom to live, work, travel and retire anywhere in the EU.  There are of course rules in place that you have to be able to support yourself, or leave after 3 months, but that was chosen not to be exercised by our government.  Anyway, at the moment that is a level playing field for all EU members, and therefore jobs within the EU.  If we leave, UK citizens will very likely require sponsorship or visas to be able to work in the EU, thereby erecting a barrier to businesses for recruitment of UK citizens.  Why would they choose to overcome that hurdle (which some of course would), when they have so many other people available in the pool of the EU workforce.  That is a reduction of opportunity for our children.Likewise, certain sectors in the UK are heavily reliant on the EU for the free trade of services and people in order to be successful.  Science is a particular area that springs to mind.  So the science industry in the UK would reduce over time, and therefore also opportunities within that sector in the UK.In addition to all that, at the moment there is reciprocity of recognition of qualifications within the EU.  So A-levels taken in the UK would carry the same weight as a baccalaureate taken in France, for example.  Outside of the EU, and with no 'deal' in place, qualifications and certifications gained within the UK would not be recognised within the EU.  It is my understanding that this would also be true if an International Baccalaureate, for example, is gained in the UK.  It wouldn't be recognised in the rest of the EU.So, that is why leaving the EU would be depriving our young people of a future on their home continent.  Trade deals elsewhere may mean they could have horizons further afield, otherwise they would be stuck in the ever-shrinking UK or at 'the back of the queue' as far as the EU is concerned.

Clare Noeken ● 2906d

Those claiming, absurdly, that a second referendum would be undemocratic (since when would asking for a vote be undemocratic?), might find it instructive to see what leading Brexiteers were saying before the referendum.For guidance on how best to conduct it, David Davis said in parliament on 26 November 2002:   “Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting.” This was manifestly not the case during the 2016 EU referendum campaign. Remember the popular cry: "Give us more facts"? The problem was that at that time there were no facts. Only speculation and supposition from both sides. In this vacuum, both were able to make claims and promises that could not be checked or verified.Interesting that Davis rather failed to heed his own advice on how to ensure the legitimacy of a referendum. Instead, he made a strong case for holding a referendum “when people know exactly what they are getting.” In a speech in 2012 he said that the government should spell out what relationship it was seeking with the EU before putting it to the public in a “mandate referendum” and following it up the outcome with a “decision referendum”. “This in turn would mean that British citizens would be offered the best possible circumstances for staying in, as well as a real alternative in pulling out. The purpose of this strategy is to maximise both the democratic legitimacy and the negotiating leverage to achieve our policy aims.”This argument was backed by John Redwood, who claimed: “This seems to me to be the best way forward. The negotiations would also allow the government to negotiate the items that would need to be sorted out for exit anyway. There do need to be arrangements on ferry routes, airspace, pipelines, extradition, police intelligence and all the rest between the UK and the rest of the EU.”   Finally, in a video clip widely-shared on social media the leading Brextremist Jacob Rees-Mogg made the case during a 2011 Commons debate on an EU referendum; he argued that “It might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed”.What wise words …. then, and just as wise now.

Richard Carter ● 2901d